Ferneyhough's Plough

[nathanb]

Elliott Carter's music is significantly easier to play than Ferneyhough. I like Ferneyhough a lot, one of my favourite composers, but I still think his solo guitar music is Kurze Shit-en to play compared to Carter's.

I can sorta play a couple of instruments, but I'm not formally trained... my observation on purely sonic terms is that Ferneyhough's timbral directions / articulations / modes of attack are much more specific than Carter's (hence why the Freeman Etudes are relevant here, I assume?). Do you think this is accurate?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I can sorta play a couple of instruments, but I'm not formally trained... my observation on purely sonic terms is that Ferneyhough's timbral directions / articulations / modes of attack are much more specific than Carter's (hence why the Freeman Etudes are relevant here, I assume?). Do you think this is accurate?

Absolutely. Elliott Carter was not aligned with composers like Ferneyhough for this reason. He tended towards pitch and rhythmic/tempo ratios as the main focus for determining structure in his music. Basically Carter was all about 'melody, harmony and rhythm' first and foremost. There are parallels between his and Ferneyhough's music on a more superficial level when viewing the levels of rhythmic complexity, but it is fairly evident that treatment of instrumental techniques, melodic and harmonic writing are quite different when looking at scores....

[nathanb]

"sonatas for string quartet"? Haven't heard that, unless you mean the String Quartets, which I've heard 2,4 and 6....

The "Sonatas For String Quartet" are essentially make up his "String Quartet No. 1"

[Mandryka]

FREEMAN ETUDES. YES.

Why?

[Mandryka]

I've never been able to get into Ferneyhough's music, no matter how hard I try.
There are a few pieces I like, but "like" is the maximum enjoyment I've gotten.

Have you tried the 3rd quartet?

[Crudblud]

Why?

In the Freeman Etudes, Cage was essentially writing "studies in impossibility." The scores are so densely and precisely detailed, often with multiple instructions for each individual note, that it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to perform them accurately. This density or excess of information is a key element of New Complexity, a cursory glance at a Ferneyhough score should confirm this.

However, it seems I have gotten the dates mixed up. Ferneyhough was already writing his excessively detailed scores before Cage began work on the Etudes (Time and Motion Study No. 2, which I was going to use as an example, precedes Cage's initial work by a year), so I guess that rules it out. For some reason I had thought that New Complexity started in the '80s. My mistake.

[Mandryka]

In the Freeman Etudes, Cage was essentially writing "studies in impossibility." The scores are so densely and precisely detailed, often with multiple instructions for each individual note, that it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to perform them accurately. This density or excess of information is a key element of New Complexity, a cursory glance at a Ferneyhough score should confirm this.

However, it seems I have gotten the dates mixed up. Ferneyhough was already writing his excessively detailed scores before Cage began work on the Etudes (Time and Motion Study No. 2, which I was going to use as an example, precedes Cage's initial work by a year), so I guess that rules it out. For some reason I had thought that New Complexity started in the '80s. My mistake.

For Cage the difficulty was there for political/spiritual reasons, art least in the piano etudes. I wonder why Ferneyhough made his music so difficult to play.

By the way, to me,a listener, the music doesn't sound like virtuoso bravura. The difficulty of the performance doesn't come across to me in the music, in (eg) Bone Alphabet.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

In the Freeman Etudes, Cage was essentially writing "studies in impossibility." The scores are so densely and precisely detailed, often with multiple instructions for each individual note, that it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to perform them accurately. This density or excess of information is a key element of New Complexity, a cursory glance at a Ferneyhough score should confirm this.

However, it seems I have gotten the dates mixed up. Ferneyhough was already writing his excessively detailed scores before Cage began work on the Etudes (Time and Motion Study No. 2, which I was going to use as an example, precedes Cage's initial work by a year), so I guess that rules it out. For some reason I had thought that New Complexity started in the '80s. My mistake.

For some reason I had heard the same thing regarding the start of New Complexity. I think the term was coined in that decade when music in that style had existed for a couple of decades already.

Wikipedia tells us of a certain 1988 article called '4 facets of the New Complexity' by Richard Toop which compares the music of Barrett, Dench, Dillon and Finnissy. Interesting that one of the local ensembles here (Elision) has a reputation for regularly programming music Richard Barrett and Chris Dench. These composers certainly became more well known after the 1980s along with Ferneyhough.

[Crudblud]

For Cage the difficulty was there for political/spiritual reasons, art least in the piano etudes. I wonder why Ferneyhough made his music so difficult to play.

By the way, to me,a listener, the music doesn't sound like virtuoso bravura. The difficulty of the performance doesn't come across to me in the music, in (eg) Bone Alphabet.

Right, Cage was never a very showy composer, and the Freemans are definitely not intended to encroach on the territory of Paganini. As for Ferneyhough, he gives some thoughts about his approach to scores here which may shed some light. Or may not. From what he says I get the sense that the extreme detail is intended to provide some level of choice for the performer, probably not in the Cage sense, though.

For some reason I had heard the same thing regarding the start of New Complexity. I think the term was coined in that decade when music in that style had existed for a couple of decades already.

Wikipedia tells us of a certain 1988 article called '4 facets of the New Complexity' by Richard Toop which compares the music of Barrett, Dench, Dillon and Finnissy. Interesting that one of the local ensembles here (Elision) has a reputation for regularly programming music Richard Barrett and Chris Dench. These composers certainly became more well known after the 1980s along with Ferneyhough.

That makes sense. Probably in the thick of the decades prior it was quite difficult to untangle all the new developments, since so many were occurring simultaneously, and lend a name to something that might have initially seemed indistinguishable from all the other challenging new music.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

That's a very good short documentary, Crudblud, I encourage anyone interested in his music to watch it!

Might also be worth pointing out that in a 1992 interview (conducted by Australian composer and music journalist Andrew Ford) that he describes his music as 'anti-virtuoso' because of what mindset is required of the performers to play it. Later on the topic of 'complexity' he states:

If my music is 'complex' in intention, it is not because its structure is necessarily more inherently complex than any other music, but simply because the fact of complexity is treated as one of the objects of the discourse itself.  Perceived complexity is a function of perspective.

[Mandryka]

If you can read French you may enjoy the rather passionate posts on Ferneyhough by Lucien here

http://classik.forumactif.com/t3685-brian-ferneyhough-1943?highlight=ferneyhough

Re complexity he says the following, which is interesting though it would be nice to have some references to where Ferneyhough discusses these ideas

8. Il est vrai que l'interprète est souvent dépassé un texte trop complexe et détaillé. Le compositeur a pourtant toujours insisté sur le fait qu'il n'attend pas des interprètes qu'ils exécutent exactement toutes les informations. On peut penser, naïvement peut-être, que la liberté de l'interprète est d'autant plus grande que les informations qu'on lui donne sont réduites. Ferneyhough fait le pari inverse. Plus on donne d'indications à un musicien, plus il devra les interpréter librement et faire sienne la partition, l'intérioriser et la restituer de façon expressive. Remarquons aussi encore une fois que le geste compositionnel suit l'idéosyncrasie de l'instrument (étudié au préalable) ; jamais il n'écrit contre ou en marge de l'instrument (contrairement à beaucoup de compositeurs, en particulier récents). De ce point de vue il est assez conservateur, dans la mesure où il ne cherche pas à employer des sons substantiellement inouïs.

9. Le surplus est également perceptif, du côté de l'auditeur. Dans une telle complexité polyphonique, l'oreille ne peut pas tout saisir de façon égale, consciemment et dans l'instantanéité. Ce fait, loin de l'appauvrir, rend la perception plus riche et plus active. L'auditeur est forcé de trouver son chemin. La complexité crée un genre d'écoute diagonale, c'est-à-dire que l'oreille ne perçoit pas toutes les voix en même temps avec un souci égal, mais "divague" entre les lignes, dirigeant son attention vers l'un ou l'autre objet qui la sollicite, le reste étant perçu de façon périphérique ou indirecte. Ce type d'écoute n'est pas propre à la musique de Ferneyhough (ou à celle d'autres compositeurs proches), mais elle a ici un statut de principe esthétique. La musique n'est alors jamais tout à fait épuisable, débordant toujours, et sa perception peut être sans cesse renouvelée sans que son sens cesse de l'excéder.

[snyprrr]

Wo0w, 2Pages of incredibly thoughtfiul Replies!!


I WANTED TO BE CLEAR that I was ONLY comparing Carter's prize-winning 1971 SQ3 with Ferney's "full early maturity" SQ3 from 1989. And yes, it was only a "surface complexity" that even prompted my interest: both pieces seemed to have lots of "thorny brambles of notes" in a style that didn't really sound like, say, .... the kinds of 1960s Complexity... this is the NEW 1970s Complexity... like you said, they were just beginning to unravel ALL of the post-WWII innovations and setting them down for the first time...

So, now we've heard that "Carter is impossible to play" and that :Ferney is more impossible than Carter"...

PLEASE listen to the two pieces I offered. Same medium, different eras, same general sonic profile. Frankly, in this instance, the Carter "sounds" more complex and varied... I hear what you're saying about Ferney's SQ6: we all know Carter DID mellow just a hair's breath in his 100s, lol!! BUT- take this Ferney from 1989 vs 1971 Carter...



Now, I did listen again to the original Arditti Ferney 3. The recording is so tight that it gives an undue edge to the music, and I wonder if the AEON set's acoustic gives the music a totally different profile. Does anyone have both and can verify (still can't afford it...)?


1) I also agree with the guitar comment. Yes, THAT piece, certainly .

2) "Lemma vs Night Fantasies".... I don't know what to say here. Yes, the chronology is there, but, because Carter is giving a "night" programme, whereas Ferney seems to be giving a more "symposium" programme, my question would be, What does Ferney sound like in a noctural mood, and how would 'Night Fantasies' have sounded if it were, in fact, titled 'Symposium' (or some "rigorous" sounding title)??


Ferney grew up in that climate, though. Carter grew up when most music was still "normal". OK, tell me then, which Composer of the first post war generation IS the pre-Ferney? Is it 1940s Boulez? I'm actually having a Carter epiphany as this conversation is happening.

Some said that Ferney can't be "loved", only "liked"....others seem to have found some more fantasy in, say, SQ6... I'd say Ferney is coming around to a "magical realism"?? Perhaps we can really really look forward to String Quartets 7-11???

[snyprrr]

Is it FerneyHUFF or FerneyHO  ? I know, I'm embarrassed

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Wo0w, 2Pages of incredibly thoughtfiul Replies!! [snypped]

Is it FerneyHUFF or FerneyHO  ? I know, I'm embarrassed

It's HUFF.

I'm finding these posts interesting, because Ferneyhough is a composer I've heard very little of. What little I've heard, plus what I've read about "New Complexity," didn't make me want to go much further.

But if you're saying there's a "way into" F's work via Carter, that made me perk up my ears a bit. I liked Carter's notorious 3rd Quartet right off the bat, "what with all the oodles of pizz and the various states of being" (as you put it).

What's a good first couple of pieces to get to know the Newly Complex Mr. F?

[Mandryka]

The point 9 that Lucien makes above is really interesting if you know anything about early music

Dans une telle complexité polyphonique, l'oreille ne peut pas tout saisir de façon égale, consciemment et dans l'instantanéité. Ce fait, loin de l'appauvrir, rend la perception plus riche et plus active. L'auditeur est forcé de trouver son chemin. La complexité crée un genre d'écoute diagonale, c'est-à-dire que l'oreille ne perçoit pas toutes les voix en même temps avec un souci égal, mais "divague" entre les lignes, dirigeant son attention vers l'un ou l'autre objet qui la sollicite, le reste étant perçu de façon périphérique ou indirecte. Ce type d'écoute n'est pas propre à la musique de Ferneyhough (ou à celle d'autres compositeurs proches), mais elle a ici un statut de principe esthétique. La musique n'est alors jamais tout à fait épuisable, débordant toujours, et sa perception peut être sans cesse renouvelée sans que son sens cesse de l'excéder.

In such complex polyphony, the ear can't take in everything equally, consciously and in the moment. Far from improverishing our perception,  this makes it richer and more active. The listener is forced to find his own road. The complexity makes for a sort of diagonal listening,, that's to say the ear doesn't perceive all the voices at the same time with the same attention, but wonders between the lines, directing its attention towards one or other object which attracts it, the rest being perceived in a peripheral or indirect way. This type of listening isn't just limited to Ferneyhough's music . . . but it has here the status of an aesthetic principle. So the music is never completely exhaustible, it is always overflowing [debordant, going beyond any limits our perception imposes in it - the metaphor is a river overflowing its banks] and its perception can be constantly remade afresh, without the meaning of the music every ceasing to be greater than what is perceived  [this last sentence is not easy to translate] [my emphasis]

The bit I put in bold is exactly what I felt when I heard SQ6, and I think it's a feature shared by Beethoven op 131 -- but in the case of Beethoven it's not due to the complex polyphony. It's not altogether clear to me that the polyphony is the sole important factor which causes the effect in the Ferneyhough either.

[Crudblud]

Is it FerneyHUFF or FerneyHO  ? I know, I'm embarrassed

Just call him Fern for short, it's easier and more amicable that way, if a little presumptuous.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Is it actually FernyHUFF? I feel terribly embarassed!!!!

[lescamil]

Is it actually FernyHUFF? I feel terribly embarassed!!!!

It is FerneyHO. I've studied with two of his former students and they have verified this when I asked.

[lescamil]

I've actually heard FerneyHOW as well.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I've actually heard FerneyHOW as well.

I'm going by the one time I heard his name pronounced on the radio. So you may be right.